4.5 Article

Evaluating the invasiveness of Acacia paradoxa in South Africa

期刊

SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY
卷 75, 期 3, 页码 485-496

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.sajb.2009.04.001

关键词

Biological invasions; Early detection; Emerging invader; Invasive alien plants

资金

  1. DST-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
  2. Working for Water Programme of the South African Department of Water Affairs and Forestry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present the first detailed survey of a population of Acacia paradoxa DC. (syn. Acacia armata R.Br.), Kangaroo Thorn, in South Africa. The species is listed under the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act as a category I invasive plant and, until 2008, was being managed as part of Working for Water's general alien clearing operations. Acacia paradoxa is currently restricted to a small population (similar to 11,350 plants over similar to 295 ha) on the northern slopes of Devil's Peak, Table Mountain National Park in the Western Cape. Its distribution is highly clumped, and at a local scale it has formed thick stands of up to 20 plants m(-2). Using a bioclimatic model we predict that it has a large potential distribution in South Africa, especially along the southern coast. We confirmed the categorisation of A. paradoxa as a potential landscape transformer that requires immediate control by conducting a formal risk assessment using the Australian Weed Risk Assessment system. However, the population appears to be spreading slowly, and, while there is a significant seed-bank in some places (similar to 1000 seeds m(-2)), this is largely restricted to below the canopy of existing plants. Therefore, the population has not and likely will not rapidly spread in area, and so containment is feasible. Dedicated and thorough annual follow ups are required because plants can produce seeds when they are I year old and standard clearing operations have missed flowering plants. (C) 2009 SAAB. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据